tv [untitled] August 27, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm PDT
d8wi believe at a minimum it has been set out legislatively with various requirements to the administrative code. that may need to be amended and there is a charter requirement as well. commissionerñr walker:h%ñ ok. thank you. >> quickly, about the board of vxexaminers, that is actually a 10-mperson committee full of experts in engineering and construction, some fire personnel. it meets on request when someone is looking at an equivalencyñr r an alternative type of building approach that may not be specified in coats. ñrso, as -- specifiedñr in code. vízso, as a consequence, theyñ"y
need a couple times a year. çóit is a committee of experts n code-related issues. with that, i will turn it over to my colleague. building inspector. one of my duties is to be the secretary of thewn committee. to thatq access of appeals commission is currently having joint meetings with the code advisorykm committee to develop some input into the administrative bulletin, access issues. we are using their expertise to deal with the code issues. >> great. -- commissioner walker:u y grea.
>> as far as:ci the code advisoy committee, there are 15 members. they deliberate and make recommendations on matters pertaining to theh+d building ad improvement of the content of the san francisco building code , electrical code, plumbing code, and housing code. fáthe rules and regulations area proposed ordinance and they determine an impact on construction permits. they refer issues to the department of building inspection for your further action. theyñr include--y a major projet ñrarchitect, a civil engineer, a construction engineer, a mechanical/ contractor. a fireoñz inspection engineer.
and general contractor, a modeling contract, a commercial property8/ñ owner, members of te general business community, and a person knowledgeable about historical preservation, a person knowledgeable] disability access issues. i do have the chair from the code advisory committee here. they are bothñi available for >> good morning, commissioners. i am the chair of the code advisory committee. ñrñrthank you for recognizing my colleague. it is terrible thatçó he passed away. he was a really active member of the committee. it is a great loss. i just want to talk a little bit about the philosophy of our committee,c because i think is
important. we are in between the regulations and the real world. the expertise our committee members bring is really important. one of the things we work really hard to do is to get interpretations' out of the ether and on paper. %eier and on paper. point about the accr&ity issues, ourydv subcommittee reay is proactive about that. you are absolutely right. we have 15rlv members active in that subcommittee. -@xthey help develop a bulletino clarify and get it out in writing. the processes and the
terminations there in the code. we alsoñr have another subcommittee. we have aq structural subcommittee. we have a disability access and green building subcommittee. we have a few issues that i think kirk prepared a handout. /5we have a few issues we are waiting right now. one of them is we heard the capital living space discussion. another one -- habitable living space discussion. another one is the waterñr botte filling stations. and ordinance to add that. we discussed that at our last meeting at quite a bit. i think there was a general support about the idea, but there was confusion aboutñr howe y really implemented. were with the targets be, how
targets be, how would we implement them? is there a barrier between the water and the bottle? and so forth. detai1oárpá. i also want to mention there is c stat%xjf code -- an emergency packet of code revisions. i uf accessibility changes as well. flexibility, i understand. been there are some changes to the regulations. ñr billo work on getting a link their -- on the o=[dbis?ñ website. ñiñrcowthe access accessibility
subcommittee is working proactively on one issue, which elevators. i understand they had an on-site meeting so that we could work out the type of screens and whar information was displayed, how it is actually communicated to the publicñr and all the regulations are met. we also continue to work with the structural subcommitteeñr on the different building sizes. this is the outgrowth of moçósf the caps from a few years ago. we arey8 working hard to make e ourñr subcommittee is up toñr s. there is one other issue that came up recently. in courage -- we got some
information about umb buildings that were upgraded, and the type of ramp may not have been installed per the intent roof e ordinance. a lot of brick wallsxd are layes of brick. it appears that they were approved for thatñiñr purpose. in some cases, the property owners were only anchoring the first layer of brick. we cannot know if this issue is on a couple buildings,fácouple s happening consistently. this is from some years ago.
so, our subcommitteeçókóñ has bn communication, and --ep&e%ei çówe believe a study should be done to review some of the plans to see how many buildings might be using the type of anchor we are talking about. what we are trying to get a handle on, are all of these g impacted? or is it just añg÷ few that are impacted? the bottom line is, if it is justñr the first layer, we're nt going to get the strength that everyone expected on the code. from the code. if we look at plants, look at a revised plan check -- look at
?5if you can direct resources o that effect, that would be very helpful. ñiif there are any questions, im zwavailable to take questions. commissioner walker:'sc i would like to think the committee for all the work they have done it with the recommendations. obviously, the issues are very complicated -.lthese are the folks who have brought together all of the expert to know about geology and seismology and mind-numbing statistics that go into these coded 53 recommendations better going forward. -- that are going forward. i think the committee has provided us commissioners with the knowledge that is out there on the issues thateíñ we prioritize. it is important that you guys
are there. of course, i think we have a strong motion finally that i think the director is in charge of. fái think the umb program is beg looked at. i mean, even during the tap discussions, we talked about whether the scientists -- cap discussions, we talked about whether the scientists could provide safe for solutions. this is something we mightñr lok at. >> we are concerned about this. if it is reallyx#p'ecdotal and not a problem, then we can deal with those of the case by case basis. commissioner walker: i do have another question. on our hand out, we noticed once the commission gets a participant fort each meeting, to all of them -- for each meeting, to all of them? >>ñr since 1997, i
any stipend. commissioner walker: i know. when we are it commissioned by charter, we are not allowed. us up here, we are not paid. >>a& you know, most of our mems have been on ouud committee for quite some time. p how committed theyñr are to the code. i am really proud to be chair of that committee. amazing work for our city. át to thank the department directors. especially kirk jumped right in. it really helpsñr with our knowledge. >> you spoke about the on
reinforced masonry -- unreinforced masonry building. i know as a former pastor here in san francisco, we had to redo our building.there were issues k 1980's. these public-type buildings, older buildings. gx8.vi commend your work and the get the support for that. that is quite important for those institutions to remain in 8 cap study helped illustrate was it there are certification -- there are certain things you can demonstrate, sort of low hanging fruit. that is really what our efforts have been the last, i would say, 18 months. to bring those four were in code regulation and say, -- forward
in code regulations and say, hey. i do not think it will be a repeat of 19 06 -- 1906, but that has been our recent focus. >> my second question -- going that most of our seats expire in 2013. i don't know what the nomination process is, how we move forward people to fill these seats, but i think it is important for our commission and the existing committee to start working on that to makeñi sure this excellt work continues. it seems to me to be much of the guts of what we do proactively and on into the future. i hope we calendar that matter,
nominations and so forth. >> we actually have a nominations' subcommittee of the bic. >> ok. >> i just know there isxd a subcommittee where everybody sees -- people have been there ñrsince 1997, and they?f say "w" commissioner lee: i also want to express myñr appreciation to the code advisory committee. 0hthey have puta2÷ in a lot of. many, many appreciate. i just thought i would ask, how do you feel about the process -- i think i asked this before -- is the process going well?
i thought i would ask. on your end, is there anything the code advisory committee ñrxdneeds other than support frm us? >> i think the only thing that comes up regularly in our meetings is the request that we be more represented at our meetings. and mainly that is to sort of make suree5-is continuity %zuwhen code legislation moves m our committee9
but(uç if there were a regular be supported across the board by all members. ago we would just vote approval at the committee recommended this and this and this. just recently, we started receiving lettersxd for this and this reason. there are probably public documents were supporting materials with those. those might be useful tools? >> possibly. we to record all of our meetings as a matter of record. the really heavy lifting, as you know, is done at the subcommittee level. we have so manyql÷ members, it s hard to get an issue vetted in afá two-
53sgéwe pushed theñr legislatio that the working language can be really have about their. when the subcommittee brings it to the -- %xso that the working out there. when the subcommittee19ñ bringst to the committee, it is those topics that we cannot bring for. the issues are generally not totally discussed. they are only discussed at one or two meetings. years has proved very successful. commissioner lee:w2áutááhut &e%i should leave it to us as to whether we want to sit ontw the subcommittees are not. >> the work comes our way, and we just assume it comes out of the air.
cal4 get a consensus which 14ñr peope is beyond me. we put people who really understand the code together like that. there isñró-ú genuine issues tht need to be resolved in the code. other commissioners touched base on this. it is sort of feast or famine with your code. in there, there might be something, and i do not see it in their. do you have a formula addendum? if you feel --fá;dk i am tryingo thinkñr. flthere were six or seven or 10 items that came forward from the code advisoryisi committee.
and you know, it was fine and it worked out fine. but it caused concerns. my question to you isñr, do you have a you pull that,a meeting togethe, or do you piecemeal it, or -- >> the process is that we are allowed to amend the code. is it is on a three-year cycle. ñ#ñ of these codevr revisions in every department they want to change and they push it all into a new code. is a big waveñr ofu0j new provis at the state levels[q that we tn have to see how they affect ourr administration. then you see a glut come through.
occasionally we do not catch every conflict. there isq( light windows. we are correcting that, essentially. and my gosh, it has been four years since that happened. then youl.z get provisions where jt(s people saying, hey, thereiu÷ is a prob. çso, in between those cycles, they go to the top because they are individual issues and we're dealing with them on their own individual cycle. but when those changes happened during those large waves of changes, theyfá get kind of los. ñrbut they are best -- once again,ñr a constituent groups ae invitedñi to)yñ our submitting meetings. they have a notice.
those are agenda items. those are the best places for wjathose issues to get hammered out. if there are constituent groupst and call different people and ask them to attend the meeting. our structural subcommittee many times+wé as other members attens well. we make sure they are reaching out to the community. if there is something i put forward by the supervisors,ñr te committeeñr has background information. where did it come from? omhow was it supposed to fit io the code? we understand what the real intent behind it is so we can integrate it into our>> als/ñá,e membership on this committee,
the small business community. we should make sure that we have diversity on this committee specifically to make sure that s there that can help, if there is something that will be a red plaid. that is really the purpose of having so many representatives and everything covered. in the making of the amendment or coated pfizer recommendations, that is really the best time to have been put. that goes to your point of making sure that we do out reach when we put people on this,fá tt all of our constituencies, if you will, our coverxb that are affected by this. >> and thatñr those members are coming in turn, connected to community said that they cane draw on that opinion and be truly %%%uju groups. >> ok.
once again, -- commissioner mar. >> i want to say, on the last comment, on having regular esc representation, i know i attended a few of the meetings. they were very good. like the other commissioners, we thank you for coming in to do the work. the issue that some of us have had is some of us need to tag team because we do not want to violate the brown act with three of us showing up. e wanted to court mo that we do not show up at the mo same time by accident. that might be some good that you brought up. tzit would be helpful for the e to discuss that. -- b i c to discuss that appeared an organized way for us to participate. because your committee covers some much, there is a learning curve. ddpwhen i was new -- it took a g
time to figure out. then things get tabled, they get brought back, especially new legislation from supervisors, questions from their staff. that comeback to clarify things. it needs to have consistency but the bst has toñr work out how we haveçó consistency without open rule. >> the invitation is always open. we really would welcome your >> one more question. is there anything in place that is a gatekeeper for us? i know that if you are not listed you get sent out same there is a code advisory. is there anything else that we could?7 do to let the stakeholds
know, better than what we're doing right now, rather than signing up on the list? isñr therew3 a more bulletproof? i am finding a lot of people did not know about this. very gray. is there any way that we can guarantee participation -- basically putting the blame back on the people who should be there for these meetings -- if they do not show up, well -- ñr a difficult question. probably not thmake myself very clear. >> perhaps i could ask for clarification. you may be either asking about the attendance of committee members that the various ¥ey the public, knows what is occurring at the subcommittee meetings.
c2u/ x>> when you are going to e amending code, do you prescreen it to say this is going to affect group say, this is going to affect group b, or don]ññr yu send out a blanket notification, do you make one-on-onekhy contat with the different groups? >> if we know that it will affect a specific group, we would make a call to that group. otherwise, we have a list of people who would like dedications of any of the meetings. ÷1(p' choose whether want to come or not. maybe about 500 people there. the biggest problem i found is that our meetings are numerous, and a lot ofñátáháhere are issues, paperwork that goes along with debt. people do notz
these huge files, franklyámñ, ad summarily, will leave them rather than o >> i am just trying to get my head around this. there have been a few amendments made, done for all the right reasons, but then there are people that are blowing up when it is done and tested. it is difficult to reverse these things,ñr especially with all te hours put in. i am just trying to get toñr whether there is anything. commissioner walker? >> it is all ourqó jobs to reah out to our constituents. some of that lies on us. we getñr the code advisory notices. all the data can go. i would say, dakota advisory committee does a really good job with it, subcommittees, too,
fhtof inviting people not unnecessarily on the code advisory committee but they are stickle the fed would be affected. that is the process. reach better. but some of it liesúwrth us. that is why we are here. vcñri am a tenant representati. enant community. other people check in with other constituents. some of the outreach is with us. >> if you ever hear of, that needs to be in the loop, ú and i will get in touch with them directly. in general, we have people that are on our contact list that are from almost every group in san francisco that you can think of. çóbeyondó i do not know.